The House resumed from September 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, an act to increase the availability of financing for the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small businesses, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on this excellent piece of legislation.

We know of course that the Minister of Industry has a keen interest in small business in Canada, as do all hon. members. As late as yesterday the official opposition was talking about small business people in Canada, EI premiums and a number of other issues, extolling the virtues of small business.

Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition in the House also raised the world economic challenges going on now and asked if the government had anything to announce in its business statement in regard to that. I of course thanked him for the question and immediately told him about all the excellent legislation on which we are proposing to move to assist small businesses, and business generally, and to create wealth and jobs in Canada. That is central to the program of the government.

Therefore, given the interest of opposition members, and of all members, in the Canadian economy—if the speeches and interest shown in the House yesterday are any indication—we can only wonder why the official opposition has decided, in its wisdom—

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration points out how contradictory this is. She is, as usual, right on the mark.

It is important that this bill to help small businesses go ahead.

It is important that the opposition not cause delays on this bill by moving dilatory motions, hoist motions or other procedural tricks to stop this bill from going ahead. I do not think procedural tricks should be going on. Therefore I move:

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his speech, but I am disappointed that he wants to put the question on this very important issue at this point in time.

Be that as it may, I have a question for the hon. member. His government is taking a significant amount of EI premiums and putting them into general revenues. These moneys are in excess of what is needed in the fund to pay out to people on employment insurance.

Current information shows that taking this money out of the pockets of the private sector has a significant dampening effect on the ability of the private sector to generate employment. The hon. member knows very well that the report of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which came out 48 hours ago shows very clearly that the number one issue that impedes the ability of business to create jobs are the high taxes in this country.

I ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to ask the finance minister today to lower EI premiums by 50%.

Madam Speaker, first of all I do not want to give a procedural lesson to the member across the way, but “That the question be now put” does not mean that the debate ceases now.

I have to explain this to the hon. member. He has been a member for a long time and I am surprised he does not know the significance of the motion that is now before the House. “That the question be now put” is a motion to ensure that no member can in fact hoist the bill and prevent it from coming to a vote. That is what the motion means.

Madam Speaker, I did not know that I would have to give a procedural course to another member across the way. Perhaps I can just recommend Beauchesne to both of them and that will solve the problem. We could have a seminar. It was actually given to all members when we were elected.

The question proposed by the hon. member is very serious. He said that the government is taking EI premiums and putting them into the consolidated revenue fund. I would like him to substantiate that allegation. No such action has been taken. No one has taken EI premiums for anything. That is blatantly inaccurate. I think what he means is that there is a debate right now as to whether the best course of action should be, not is, to lower EI premiums or to lower other forms of raising money, say, for instance, general taxation, whichever is the best process to put money back into the pockets of taxpayers. That is the debate. It is not whether someone has taken or is taking EI premiums.

As to the second part of the question, the hon. member said that these funds are being put in the consolidated revenue fund. In 1986 the Auditor General of Canada recommended in a report abolishing the special UI reserve where the premiums were held. That was abolished a year later in 1987. It has been almost 12 years since there was a separate EI fund. I know news travels slowly around here sometimes, but such a fund has not existed for 12 years. The debate is not on that; the debate is on what is the best process.

The Prime Minister has listened to representations from the member opposite and others. The question is, what is the best process to put some of that money back into the pockets of Canadians, not whether it is going to happen. That is an entirely different issue. How much of a cushion should there be in the event that there is a slowdown in the economy at some point in the future, which I certainly hope does not happen.

That is the debate that is before us. It is not whether someone is taking EI premiums. It is nonsensical to put it in those terms and does a disservice to everyone around here.

I would recommend that all Canadians read the Reform Party's policies. I know that is difficult at the best of times.

Let me rephrase that. Canadians should read a very small portion of the Reform Party's policies because I know that reading a lot would cause indigestion, heartburn and other things. We might have to call a well-known physician in the House to take care of us if we read too much.

If we read very briefly that part which refers to EI premiums, I know very well that the policy of the Reform Party has been, as late as the last election, to take EI funds and use them for tax reduction. That was the policy of the Reform Party, stated in its own documents.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I point out to anyone watching this debate that the member from the opposite side has just pulled what we would call a sneaky procedural trick while he has accused us of doing that.

What we want to do and what the Liberals are failing to do is to improve legislation. It is totally false for him to imply that we are somehow against the ability of business to do its job. He is saying that we want to prolong and somehow kill this legislation. We want to improve it. We have found from this Liberal government that there is no openness to reasonable amendments. We want to make some amendments, we want to have an allocation of time given to improving this bill before it is put into law.

In the 35th parliament this government used some form of time allocation or closure 35 times. The Liberals do not want debate. They do not want debate in the House and they do not want debate among the Canadian people. Once the Liberals have made up their bullheaded minds they do not want to change their minds. That is giving us legislation that is far less than what it could be.

We have already had seven time allocation motions in this parliament including one earlier this week on the DNA act. We supported the principle of that bill but there were some very important amendments to be made. What reaction did we get from this government? We got “No, we are going to do it our way” and there was a time allocation motion. The government brought all its members in here. They stood and voted for it on command. As a result the bill was jammed through in its present uncorrected form. It is flawed legislation.

Why are the Liberals opposed to having legislation improved? Surely they are not so arrogant as to think that the very first shot at it is the best anybody in Canada can ever do. Why are they not willing to listen to other points of view, those expressed by the Canadian people through the opposition and those expressed by Canadians directly? Why are they insisting on closing down debate? This is really unacceptable.

I would like the member opposite to explain to the Canadian people, not just to me and our party, not just to the opposition, why his party has to resort to these heavy handed tactics in order to jam its legislation through, in its perfect form according to them, when we know it could be improved.

Madam Speaker, I recommend to the hon. member citation 521 of Beauchesne's. That is the first part of my answer.

The member says that he wants the bill amended but the motion he put earlier this week was that the bill be delayed for six months and not amended. He proposed a motion that would stop it from going to committee where his own amendments could be proposed.

The opposite to the truth has never been stated more accurately than by what the hon. member has done just now.

Madam Speaker, I want to speak to Bill C-53, but something just happened here that, I think, requires clarification.

Apparently in response to a Reform motion to be disposed of next Tuesday I guess, the government House leader is proposing a kind of gag order. Because he does not agree with the Reform Party's motion to defer consideration of the bill for six months, he is proposing that we proceed immediately. That is what he said this morning.

This needs clarifying. The government House leader referred to our Standing Orders, but went on to talk about employment insurance and what not, leaving the people who are at home listening to us completely confused

Granted, Bill C-53 is not perfect. However, given the principles behind the bill, including the need for small businesses in Quebec and Canada to have access to financing, leaving these businesses in a lurch for six month cannot be justified.

Last year, through Bill C-21, approximately $1 billion in additional funding was to be provided. Now, this was a while ago, and we all know how long it takes for legislation and programs to be implemented at the federal level, especially with this government, which is quick to propose time allocation motions but is very slow when it comes to reviewing programs. I find this somewhat funny. The government House leader wants to proceed quickly when this bill is not well structured enough to meet the needs of small businesses.

At the same time, there is an urgent need to maintain funding. But we must be careful not to repeat the mistake made these past three years, when a bill was introduced each year to provide a one-year extension as well as additional funding. This year-to-year approach makes no sense.

We must at least recognize that Bill C-53 provides for the continuous operation of the small business loans program. We support this objective. It is very important, imperative, that we stop playing this game year after year, leaving our small businesses across Canada on the edge all the time.

Under this kind of management approach, the people concerned live in fear of the program being abolished or of funds running out so they rush out to the bank so they can be sure to benefit from the program. Often, projects, and this has been shown, are not always ready and are more vulnerable. They risk being rejected.

When the time comes to compensate the banks for losses, the government has a number of demands. This is what occurred in the past, because the basis was a year at a time. The auditor looked into that and noted that there was indeed a control problem and a certain lack of cost effectiveness. I think that, for the last year, the compensation figure was around $200 million. A significant figure nevertheless.

However, 95% of businesses in Canada are small. They create nearly 50% of jobs. It is the small businesses of 50 employees or fewer that use much of the manpower and are the most imaginative and creative, we have to admit. They are the most involved in economic development. That is very important.

This is why we support the bill in principle and why, Tuesday, the Bloc Quebecois will support it. We understand to some extent the arguments of the Reform Party and we understand why the Reform Party wants a six-month delay in order to better understand the situation. If we agreed to their proposal, we run the risk of depriving small business of funding for a fairly long time. We cannot agree to that.

The best approach would be for the Reform Party and the other opposition parties along with the government members to buckle down and get to work on the Standing Committee on Industry. The parliamentary secretary is here and has said that he would be receptive to changes and improvements. For once. We are not used to having the government open to change proposed by the opposition.

Generally, they tend to think the truth is exclusively on their side. We think it is better distributed than that. Often, it may be found as well on the opposition side.

We can call this a game, but we can also call it democracy. That is the way our system works. There is a bill, and a parliamentary committee is going to examine it. People with proposals for changes will be able to have their opinions listened to. Some changes will make sense and others will not. It will be up to the parliamentarians to evaluate that in committee.

The usual process is for a report to made to the House after that. Here again, the opposition parties can present amendments. Since this is a very important subject, this time it might be necessary for the government to show it is listening to the views of the public, which will also be expressed through the opposition parties.

This is what I have heard so far in the debate on this bill, and on Bill C-21 as well, not to mention the debate last year, because the government brings this up pretty well every year.

I am on the Standing Committee on Industry, and again yesterday morning we were presented with a foot-thick pile of documents and statistical studies. There are proposals for such things as seminars, symposia, endless press reviews, and groups asking to be heard. The association of independent business people, consumers, big business, all have opinions on this. Then there is all the current debate around the bank mergers. This is far from a minor issue. It is important.

At the present time, there are seven major banks, plus the caisses populaires in Quebec. As we know, the caisses populaires are extremely important in Quebec. I have some knowledge of this because their head office is in my riding. Lévis is where the Desjardins movement began in 1900. Its centennial will be coming up in two years.

My comments are very pertinent, since half of the loans granted under the old Small Business Loans Act are administered by the caisses populaires in Quebec, while the other half is administered by one of the seven major banks. This is very important.

We are indeed talking about small business and small business financing, but we are also talking about how banks operate. This is currently one of the most talked about issues at the federal level. All the parties must conduct a very thorough review of this issue. All have basic positions and principles, but the situation of financial institutions is changing so rapidly at the world level that the debate should include an assessment of the financing needs of small business. I know that the Standing Committee on Finance is looking at this issue. There is the McKay report on this.

We must take the time needed, but we must not take too much time, otherwise we would deprive our small businesses from getting the financing they need.

The bill is not perfect. It is in response to the auditor general's recommendations who, and rightly so, proposed accounting measures and controls. The auditor general did a good job. He is proposing that the government add mechanisms, that the minister have more means to control the program's effectiveness. We agree with him. However, we must not only react to this specific situation.

To rely exclusively on controls, and to implement too many of them could prevent us from benefiting from the development triggered by small business in Canada, which we truly need. The future is far from being secure and guaranteed, and major businesses—such as GM in Montreal—are slow to announce what they have in store in terms of investments, planning and direction. Meanwhile, people are left on the sidelines.

There is a major industry in my riding called Davie Industries. It has secured $300 million in contracts, but its workers face an uncertain future, because there is currently no guarantee of financing. We must take a serious look at this situation, because it involves hundreds of millions of dollars. What is involved for 95% of the businesses in Canada is $200 million that has allegedly been lost. However, they have failed to look on the profit side.

As businesses were setting up under the program and therefore creating jobs, tax money was being paid both federally and provincially. This meant additional revenues. Perhaps the program cost $200 million, but no financial studies have been done to show how much it generated for the federal and provincial departments of revenue.

There are no studies to indicate that, but I have no doubt that it brought in far more than it cost. When we talk about 50% of Canada's manpower, we are talking a lot of people. That translates into taxes too. If we do not help small business to set up and remain in operation—because a lot of them go bankrupt—and we do not provide for renewed funding, what happens? Jobs are lost.

After a period of receiving employment insurance benefits, these people find themselves without jobs. But here, I am sounding a sour note, because we realize that some 45% of people who have paid into employment insurance cannot collect benefits under the new legislation when they become unemployed. That is a scandal and the subject for another debate.

That involves money too. This sort of situation costs all taxpayers. What happens when two people are in the same situation and are not entitled to employment insurance benefits? They have to turn to social assistance. This means additional expenditures for both levels of government, since the federal government also kicks in for welfare.

I think one would have to be short-sighted to take the Reform Party's approach and try to have the bill put off for six months because it is not perfect, because it does not quite suit them, and turn a blind eye to the serious impact on the health of businesses, not to say the health of those they employ.

We cannot leave people hanging for six months, not knowing whether or not the program will be extended. If we were to go along with this measure, it would mean that, tomorrow morning, because there is still a little money left in the program—an additional $1 billion to extend it for one more year—all businesses would quickly throw projects together and rush to the financial institutions.

As I see it, there is one major problem with the bill. It guarantees the banks compensation for any losses, on condition that they move fast, because once the $1.5 billion is exhausted, they are out of luck. Everyone is scrambling, and we all know that, when there is too much haste, problems arise.

The Bloc Quebecois would have liked to see a better bill, one that incorporated the suggestions it made last year, and wishes that needs had been more accurately assessed.

An assessment of sorts is under way, it is true, and we will judge the results on their merits.

We would have liked to see more comprehensive considerations and broader consultations. We hope that, as part of the work to be done by the Standing Committee on Industry, it will be possible to carry out this consultation of the groups concerned, namely small businesses, financial institutions, the seven major banks, and the Canadian Bankers Association, as well as caisses populaires and credit unions in the rest of Canada, which operate along the same lines as financial co-operatives.

They should have a say in the matter, for the future and for the long term, so that we will not have to debate this issue in the House every year only to argue in favour of motherhood. I think that is where matters stand, but this government is going to have to listen seriously to what the public has to say and consider objectively the various proposals being made, including those from the opposition parties.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the words of my colleague from Lévis. He and I have had many discussions on small and large businesses. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree, but at least we have a good debate and try to put our best efforts forward.

When the member brings his amendments to the industry committee I hope they are to improve the bill and not marginalize it. I welcome that. I welcome his debate.

The member has been on the industry committee for a long time now. I have forgotten how many years, because we have both been there for a number of years. When we put forward Bill C-21, the extension for one year of the SBLA, in the springtime the commitment was made by the minister and the department to make sure that the new bill would be tabled as early as possible.

The objective of the industry committee was to hear from as many witnesses as possible. The stakeholders of the bill would be present to make their efforts known to the committee. The objective was to have a good industry committee discussion on the bill and on amendments that could be brought forward from the stakeholders to make sure that when the bill came back to the House it would be a bill that we would all be pleased with, not one that we would delay and then have a crunch later on.

Could the member who has been a member of the industry committee for a long time expand on that.

Madam Speaker, I will answer by saying that what goes around comes around. As the hon. member knows, I have been sitting on the committee since the election held in June of last year. As regards Bill C-21, which was to be postponed for one year, the member surely remembers that the Bloc Quebecois had supported that legislation. At the time, we had reservations about the legislation and we proposed some changes. I will certainly help him remember the amendments and suggestions we proposed back then. There is a good chance we will suggest the same changes again.

It is in this spirit that I said earlier that we would support the bill on Tuesday, when the House will vote on it, because we are dealing here with the principle of the legislation.

Can one be opposed to the principle—and I ask Reform Party members to reconsider their position on this—of helping small businesses get financing? I am not talking about subsidies. I represent the riding of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, where the Lévis shipyard is located. Because of the huge figures involved, people are always under the impression that it is a major business. They think it is outrageous to provide assistance to such a company. But there are essentially no subsidies in the funds provided by the government. All the money is provided through loans, loan guarantees or contracts. It is somewhat similar in this case.

What in fact is being asked of the government is for it to act as guarantor, up to a ceiling of $1.5 billion, to all of the small businesses in Canada for loans negotiated with banking institutions. Everyone recognizes the expertise of the banks, as well as the caisses populaires and credit unions, for they are located in the various regions concerned, which have different problems and characteristics.

The advantage of this is that it offers small business a basic program. There are other programs more specific to certain sectors, perhaps too many in my opinion. Too much of something can sometimes be as much of a problem as too little.

I was recently in an office in Vancouver in connection with my responsibility for regional development. I saw people working away at computers to locate government programs, both provincial and federal. I asked one person how long she had been at it, and she told me it had been a week. She told me it had been two days before she finally figured out how the system worked. She commented that she had been shunted from one program to another, and how very confusing it was. It is all very fine to have computers available to give people some degree of independence, but there still have to be advisors.

Quebec now has a new structure in place which impacts on the social economy, the local employment development councils. These have enhanced the economic councils, which some regions called by another name. These still need counsellors.

It must be kept in mind that a loan program is still needed. Within the framework of this legislation, this loan program is aimed at small business. It is therefore extremely important. I do not believe such an essential issue is the right place for petty partisan politics.

Up to this point in time nobody has mentioned in the House what makes small businesses go or what makes small businesses operate. Coming from the western constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain we have but two major corporations. Both are government owned. They are coal generated power plants. Outside one other business every business in my constituency is under definition a small business.

In the winter of 1966-67 my question to the small businesses in my community was to ask what they needed most. At that time the answer was to get the high cost of government doing government business for them off their backs. It was almost universal.

Now the story has changed and it is a sad case on the western prairies. It is very sad in my community for small businesses. It is probably worse to be in a small business in the grain industry now than it has been since World War II.

When I made phone calls the comments I heard were that the bill did not interest them in the least. They wanted customers who had some money to spend. We have not addressed that question in the debate. It is a domino effect. If customers have no money in their pockets, the businesses go down regardless of the loans to them. We have not addressed the plight of primary industries for a long time.

I made two phone calls to small hardware stores in my community that would certainly qualify for a loan. Basically they depend entirely on two sources: the oil patch and the agricultural community.

Both hardware stores, same response. One more year of this and we close the door.

In most in my towns and villages there are three businesses closing for every one that is staying open. We have not addressed the problem of providing and looking after our primary industries. Grain production in Saskatchewan is still the number one industry. I will give members what I dug up in the last two days. Here are four local industries.

One, setting up steel storage beams. They are out of business. They had a loan. Two, an independent soil testing device to provide information to the farmers. Closed. Out of business. Three, fertilization. It no longer pays to fertilize with the price of grain. Four is very interesting. A local contractor not too far from where I live employing four people is out of business. His job was to put new roofs, barns and so on. But there is no money. Businesses are going down because we have neglected the primary industries.

I hope the House and all Canadians will listen to this so they understand. Picture in your minds nine steel bins on the prairies full of grain. The first three bins will go to pay the freight. The next two bins will go to pay the taxes. The next two bins will pay the fuel costs. The last two bins pay the seed, spray and maybe some fertilizer. NISA, the RRSP for farmers, was a good program. I commend the government and the provinces for that. It now is gone. They used it all in the last two years. They have exhausted their total line of credit at the banks and the credit unions.

Here is the situation. I read something I got yesterday morning from my local elevator. Canadians should realize why small local businesses are out of the picture. As of yesterday, with freight deducted, the farmer takes home $2.12 with number one red spring wheat. That is the worst price that the farmers have received. Nothing since World War II could come anywhere near that.

The agricultural economists tell us that if we do not get $4.00 a bushel we are not breaking even. 3CW durum is $2.02. No wonder men stores and the ladies shops and all the small businesses are closing. Oats are 77 cents a bushel. Number one feed barley is 74 cents a bushel.

I stopped a lady who had gone in to buy some shoes, some jeans, shirts and so on for a family of three to get them started back to school. The total bill was around $324. Let me tell members the plight of western Canadian small business. That small bit that she bought for her children would take 437 bushels of barley.

Instead of joking about this situation, hon. members should be ashamed of themselves. This is not a joke. I live among these people. I know what is happening out there. All across Canada, if the primary industries are not nurtured or protected, we will have a domino effect.

It would take 8,100 bushels of barley or 7,800 bushels of wheat to pay a $6,000 tax bill.

What happens to the small business is simply that the majority of taxes in Saskatchewan go to education. These taxes are not going to come in. Therefore what happens? There are fewer roads built, fewer teachers hired and it goes on and on.

The local governments cannot keep up because of commodity pricing and they are not the least bit interested in this bill until this government takes an honest look at what part it can do in looking at a very serious situation.

Two of the largest farm implement dealerships locked their doors in the last two months. They were for sale. No buyers.

In a survey I did, at 26 farm auction sales only 2 of those farms were going to be turned over to members of the same family. The majority of these people want nothing to do with the dreadful situation that exists.

The bill looks good. The bill sounds good but it is of absolutely no value whatsoever to the people I represent until the government does something about the primary industries.

The people in my constituency could not care less about the wrangling in this House today. That does not put money in their pockets. It does not give them any guarantee for the future. They hate to face the coming winter.

I do not deny that the government wants to support small business but I want members to be aware that if they are really going to support small business, they have to look after the primary industries of this country.

In that respect, the people in western Canada, the people I have met in my constituency totally will say you have disregarded the primary interest of our province. Members have to put more money into the hands of the customer.

There are approximately 68 private insurance brokers in my constituency. One motion of this government that will allow the banks and the credit unions to have it all in-store shopping could knock out 76 private businesses in two weeks.

They have heard the same message I have but I have made it abundantly clear to them that I am here to protect their business on the main street of every town. I hope the government heeds that lesson very well.

Another thing is the overtaxation not only to the consumer but as it deals with the private small business.

The domino effect of grants from this government and from the provincial government has made it virtually impossible for the small operator to meet those taxation demands. Their taxes have gone up 8 times, 800% in less than 20 years, and little wonder. If any of the members opposite want to dispute this claim they can do their own research. Is it not true that they have had as many phone calls as I have had with regard to the EI?

Both the people who called me this morning basically said “Do you want to hurt government businesses? We paid $1.40 for every one of our employees spending $1. It belongs to us and we won't be able to hire more people unless that premium is dropped”. This was from a person hiring some 16 people.

If government really wants to help small businesses, go ahead but it had better deal with the primary things first. It has taxed businesses to death. It has taxed the Canadian public to death. It has excessively taxed people on their CPP premiums, which is another tax grab. The government has a disgraceful record in the EI.

While all this is on one side of the government's books, it tries to stand in the House and tell us what a wonderful thing this is going to be for small business.

I wanted to move a motion before this bill went any further because I wanted to make it abundantly clear to all Canadians that small businesses with a staff of two and three people are going to close their doors in my province in the next two years because of this government's lack of concern as to what it could do to support that primary industry.

The second largest bill is the tax on the fuel that a farmer uses to run his farm. I was in a farm yard not too long ago when the tanks were filled and the bill was $1,800. A good portion of that is taxation.

I think this bill should be delayed. I look at these prices such as $2.12 a bushel for wheat. I do not think there is a farm, even if it is a 20 section farm, that can survive on that. However, because this government seems to have no interest in that small amount, I want to read to this House—

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Cambridge native Crystal Gilmore and her four teammates Emilie Fournier, Veronique Leclerc, Lise Léveillé and Katie Rowland, all members of Canada's bronze medal women's gymnastic team at the recent Commonwealth Games in Malaysia.

A member of the Cambridge Kips Gymnastic Club, Crystal and her teammates represented our nation with determination and pride. They showed by their example what can be accomplished with hard work and dedication.

On behalf of the people of Cambridge and all Canadians, I congratulate Crystal, Emilie, Veronique, Lise and Katie on their success.